SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.86 número1Experiencia con el uso del stent bioactivo cubierto con titanio-óxido nítrico comparado con stent liberador de zotarolimus: experiencia de una unidad médica de alta especialidadResultados quirúrgicos y seguimiento postoperatorio de mixomas auriculares índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Archivos de cardiología de México

versión On-line ISSN 1665-1731versión impresa ISSN 1405-9940

Resumen

RODRIGUEZ-MANERO, Moisés et al. Electrical storm in patients with prophylactic defibrillator implantation. Arch. Cardiol. Méx. [online]. 2016, vol.86, n.1, pp.26-34. ISSN 1665-1731.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acmx.2015.04.008.

Introduction:

Little is known about the prevalence of electrical storm, baseline characteristics and mortality implications of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator in primary prevention versus those patients without electrical storm. We sought to assess the prevalence, baseline risk profile and survival significance of electrical storm in patients with implantable defibrillator for primary prevention.

Methods:

Retrospective multicenter study performed in 15 Spanish hospitals. Consecutives patients referred for desfibrillator implantation, with or without left ventricular lead (at least those performed in 2010 and 2011), were included.

Results:

Over all 1,174 patients, 34 (2,9%) presented an electrical storm, mainly due to ventricular tachycardia (82.4%). There were no significant baseline differences between groups, with similar punctuation in the mortality risk scores (SHOCKED, MADIT and FADES). A clear trigger was identified in 47% of the events. During the study period (38 ± 21 months), long-term total mortality (58.8% versus 14.4%, p < 0.001) and cardiac mortality (52.9% versus 8.6%, p < 0.001) were both increased among electrical storm patients. Rate of inappropriate desfibrillator intervention was also higher (14.7 versus 8.6%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

In the present study of patients with desfibrillator implantation for primary prevention, prevalence of electrical storm was 2.9%. There were no baseline differences in the cardiovascular risk profile versus those without electrical storm. However, all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality was increased in these patients versus control desfibrillator patients without electrical storm, as was the rate of inappropriate desfibrillator intervention.

Palabras llave : Electrical storm; Myocardiopathy; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Sudden cardiac death; Spain.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )